Robert Oppenheimer proclaimed this statement as quoted ..Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds?
He was quoting the Hindu Bible and doubted why MAN created the atomic bomb as did many scientists of the era.
Do you think that the hoax of global warming by scientists in receipt of billions of dollars in grant moneys is a violation of the scientific hypocratic oath that scientists can do no harm. Considering that environmental legislation as proposed by radicals will and is putting people out of their jobs and careers.
Do you think there should be some sort of check on these environmentalists that lobbied for a long time to get power and now that
they have come up with AGW as their poster child, should there be checks and balances on what they can do?
They want to change our complete economic and sociological norms as long as it doesn't affect their incomes or lives.
Is this a fair statement?
Yes, there is a scientist hypocratic oath. Just google the definition. Not widely used anymore.
Bad Moon Rising ..... I read that paper by Richard Lindzen. Excellent paper Bad Moon and thank you very much for this. The logic is absolutely perfect. I would wish the warmers would take the time and read this, may open their minds somewhat.
Antarcticaice.... you need to cool down ... Here is one rendition of the scientific code:
In 2007, the UK government’s chief scientific advisor, Sir David King, laid out a ‘universal code of ethics' for researchers across the globe. The UK government has already adopted them.
The seven principles of the code, intended to guide scientist's actions, are:
Act with skill and care in all scientific work. Maintain up to date skills and assist their development in others.
Take steps to prevent corrupt practices and professional misconduct. Declare conflicts of interest.
Be alert to the ways in which research derives from and affects the work of other people, and respect the rights and reputations of others.
Ensure that your work is lawful and justified.
Minimise and justify any adverse effect your work may have on people, animals and the natural environment.
Seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society. Listen to the aspirations and concerns of others.
- Bad Moon RisingLv 71 decade agoBest Answer
Starbuck: I gather that you read Lindzen's piece on scientific integrity and the current state of affairs at the NAS? If not it is below. Read it -plain and simple. The article should be reprinted in virtually every professional Journal in every discipline of science. It is a vitally important issue.
I am a 35 year practicing Earth Scientist who has 3 different Professional associations and am Licensed and Permitted in my jurisdictions. I saw your qualifications and am impressed; alas I am a mere mortal that stopped at the BSc - Honors level. I did it despite numerous offers to continue on for a PhD. Because of my tender age of 20 and my need to earn a living, I declined.
I tried to post into your thread on "qualifications" but it has disappeared!
To those that think that AGW is a simple and straightforward, scientifically resolved issue, then that will answer the question as to why you need either an actual qualified opinion or you need to seek the honest advice of somebody you know and trust to formulate your opinion. Just be aware that the NAS, he NRC, the Royal Society and the IPCC do not actually produce "science". They provide Government policy initiatives no different than those of the "Discovery Institute". Unless you can see and critically evaluate the data and it is readily available and not "smoothed out" or "simplified", then it isn't Science!
- 4 years ago
I used that exact same quote earlier in the week when I said that any presidential candidate that was adamantly opposed to abortion on moral grounds should immediately disqualify themselves from looking for a job that gives them access to the type of power that Oppenheimer was alluding to From a strictly moral standpoint no true Christian should ever run for president
- berenLv 71 decade ago
Yes, those bad evil scientists studying climatology in school, just so they can become super rich and rule the planet. Those smart people could have gone into more pious fields like finance, law, or politics. But no, they chose the evil route.
We should all get pitchforks and rush to all the climatologists million dollar estates and burn them to the ground. However, I do worry about their private security forces, because with the kind of money they make, they can afford to hire the best.
- bravozuluLv 71 decade ago
Scientists aren't required to be honest. Even their theories are often bogus. It the past, there was more of a tradition among scientists that truth was an important goal. That obviously isn't the case with many of the global warming "scientists" who are nothing but political hacks with the no morality at all. It is pathetic how leftists have hijacked the "science" to twist an manipulate it without political accountability since it is us who are paying for this propaganda.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- antarcticiceLv 71 decade ago
Oh dear not even close, Hippocrates was a doctor the contents of the oath are about medicine
Berens tongue in cheek answer show the nonsense of your rant, as you continue to prove you don't know anything about science
- Ben OLv 61 decade ago
There is no such oath taken by scientists. There isn't a universal definition of a scientist, or a minimum level of qualifications, universal code of ethics or association of members - anyone can be a scientists with any code of conduct.
- Icarus62Lv 71 decade ago
Your entire question is based on a falsehood - that word 'hoax'. Global warming is clearly very real and something we need to be deeply concerned about. You shouldn't be trivialising it with such nonsense.
- 1 decade ago
george w bush was one of our best presidents definatley top 20
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Yes. No nukes ever!!!